Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

More on California's Special Election and Labor

Proposition 75 is a proposition called "paycheck protection." What it means is that a labor union may not use dues for political purposes without the express consent of each member. This proposition is limited to public employee unions only. Every time I see such a proposition, I wonder why a corporation can use money for political purposes without each employee's consent. But here, it's a public employee union, so that issue of 'balance' is a bit diminished. We're talking about prison guards, cops, firemen, and teachers. 'Specially teachers. Anyone without a tin ear for politics knows that this is Schwarzenegger hitting at his political enemies. It's about as brazen a move as prohibiting donations to any campaign of any person who once used steroids. I would support that, the anti-Schwarzenegger, anti-Barry-Bonds initiative. But I digress.

There is a real danger Proposition 75 will pass, singling out these unions for political impotence (many of which already lack the right to strike).

My larger beef is that labor unions aren't going about promoting propositions of their own, such as ones prohibiting corporations from making political contributions altogether. A corporation is supposed to make money, not indulge the personal political desires of the directors. As a matter of corporate law, then, it would follow that spending money on politics is just an improper use of corporate funds... unless the corporation "gets" something for its contribution that is good for business. Of course, that is exactly what happens, and why it should be banned.

There is no reason why the initiative process must be the tool of the right alone, but for laziness. Will Change To Win change this?


Dr. Strangelove said...

I think the unions have the right strategy on this one. They are spending money to ultimately defeate the governor in 2006. They can't afford to spend money on a competing initiative that will confuse voters and which--even if it passes--will be less devastating to corporate contributors than to unions, since the CEOS tend to be personally wealthy anyhow.

"Change to Win" isn't much of a change and I don't expect them to start winning. Am I wrong on this?

Anonymous said...

An even better analogy would be that Corporations can donate to politicians without each STOCK HOLDER's consent! Can you imagine how difficult it would be to get every single stock holder to even mail in the cards that say "you may donate to politicians from party X." 

// posted by Raised By Republicans